Bush signs bill that makes torture legal

The word "tough" makes it sound so harmless. Remember, this is defined as "stopping just short of physical or mental trauma."

10-19-2006 10:09 PM

jatfla

Didn't the bill have to get through Congress before the President could sign it??!!!! Didn't the law have to be revamped to meet the current "moral" high ground of our PC culture and accepted by the Supreme Court of the Land??

Here's one Mom and Grandma who doesn't mind one bit if a seriously suspected "terrorist" is interrogated "within an inch of his life". They can put panties on their heads too. Maybe just the threat of *that* will prevent someone/anyone from blowing up something in *my Country*, *my town*, *my neighborhood* or *my family*.

10-20-2006 1:19 AM

tpq62

This is a truly vile moment in American history. Cowardice has overcome principle.

10-20-2006 6:15 PM

@jatfla: the problem is this phrase:

seriously suspected "terrorist"

They can suspect anybody they want to now, and no one can challenge them in court. I have no great sympathy for terrorists, but one of the things this country was founded on was the principle that one person -- the president or whoever -- doesn't have the right to unilaterally declare someone a criminal, throw them in jail, torture them until they confess, keep the evidence secret, and never have to make a public case in court. The president can do all of that and more now. It could happen to you, and it could happen to me, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. If you don't ...

10-20-2006 6:26 PM

Kore7

Some background info on Maher Arar.

10-23-2006 6:28 AM

bjtindle

It makes me angry, sad, upset, and any other word that can be used in that context. He has now legalized what he was doing illegally in order to cya. I can't believe that our congress allowed him to do this.

10-23-2006 8:34 AM

jatfla

Congress and the Supreme Court has *authorized* him to do it.

Don't think so enbar. They're not going to find me with bombs in my shoes, making explosives in my bedroom, carrying boxes containing 1000 cell phones in my car, my name or phone number on a list of "known terrorists", holed up with Osama, or transporting weapons through tunnels, etc....

Old proverbs have exceptions of course, but "Where there's smoke, there's fire" and "If you've nothing to hide, what's the problem?" come to mind.

10-23-2006 10:57 AM

tpq62

Jatfla
Being proven of breaking the law is not the same thing as being suspected of breaking the law. Having bombs in your shoes or making explosives in your bedroom is pretty good evidence under traditional western jurisprudence. You will have actually broken a law. Arresting you for suspicion of doing that is another thing altogether. Regardless, I am not sure how your point is a justification for torture.

Also I'd be cautious about making moral decisions, or even just arguing moral decisions, on the basis of cliches.

10-23-2006 1:47 PM

You don't need to speculate about it. There are plenty of cases of innocent people being tortured into a confession, Maher Arar being only the earliest well-publicized example. Maher Arar was related to someone who had once been roommates with someone who was on a blacklist. Or at least it was something like that. I recently read about another person who was held and tortured because he had the same nickname as a well-known Taliban leader. What do you think protects you against a simple case of mistaken identity, if you can't make a case in court?

10-25-2006 10:36 PM

Before it was "legalized" it was not " illegal". The enemy combatants were not covered under the Geneva Convention. That is why the Supreme Court established that congress and the President needed to enact a definitive policy.

People are being held for years without being charged with a crime, and are being subjected to these "tough interrogation" methods. Not only do we admit it, but now we've made it legal.

"It has always amazed me" ( to borrow a phrase) that people cannot understand the stakes we are facing and that the people being held are not innocent. They want to kill you.

The comments I see her in CM make me so glad to be an American where we do not ...

10-25-2006 10:47 PM

ericskiff

I'm not against imprisoning people who want to kill us.

I'm against imprisoning people without PROVING that they want to kill us, or even charging them of that crime. I'm against using tough interrogation methods to get false confessions out of them.

Military intelligence has come forward to say these things do not make our nation more secure.

10-25-2006 11:41 PM

@wilhelm:

people cannot understand the stakes we are facing and that the people being held are not innocent.

Except for the ones that are innocent. What about them? Where's your sense of human decency? Being a good American is now just about sheer self-preservation at the expense of principles?

10-26-2006 1:28 AM

Godfrey Daniel

If one's principles demand self destruction--suicide as evidence of loyalty--one has adopted some boneheaded principles.

10-26-2006 7:47 AM

If you really believe that those are the alternatives -- principles or suicide -- then that's where i differ. That's a widely held belief, and it's certainly what the government wants you to think, but I don't see a lot of evidence for it that's not hype. I realize there's a certain attractiveness in black-and-white thinking, but it's not always realistic.

10-26-2006 7:52 AM

The DEVIL is showing his true face. At last !

10-26-2006 8:03 AM

Bush and the american administration can fool some of their people some of the time, but they cant fool ALL their people ALL the time. And these evil steps they are taking are helping the people to wake up to see their true nature. And it is Evil.

And these steps are also signs of the nearing of their miserable ending. In the Rubbish heap of humanity. Like other evil and lieing dictators and administrations before them, who have littered history. Talking about freedom and democracy and practicing constrainment and hypocracy. Not only to the outside world but also internaly on his own fellow countrymen and woman.

The sooner the world wakes up to this (and it is waking up), the better.

10-26-2006 7:49 PM

Bush and the american administration can fool some of their people some of the time, but they cant fool ALL their people ALL the time. And these evil steps they are taking are helping the people to wake up to see their true nature. And it is Evil.

Quite profound in the context of actual evil consisting of burying women up to their shoulders and stoning them to death or beheading innocent people. Evil is easily defined. It does not include locking up prisoners that intend to do American's harm. As for the idea there are innocent detainees, I guess that the basis for an argument. However, given the fact there probably are none, the argument is a non-starter.

10-26-2006 8:19 PM

Well ,I can say that in america innocent people are killed by the state. Injected with lethal chemicals. Are they not? Isnt that what Capital punishment is?. But its not fair for me just to say this and not put in the rest of the context is it Will? This is what you are doing. Surely you should be fair and put in the context , just like i should be fair and put the context, and say that these people are not just any people but people who have gone through a trial process etc etc and are convicted of muder and the evidence is strongly against them etc etc. Surely one should be fair? Otherwise one is simply prejudiced. I hope you are not. Thanks , ali.

10-26-2006 11:16 PM

As for the idea there are innocent detainees, I guess that the basis for an argument. However, given the fact there probably are none, the argument is a non-starter.

On what earthly basis, besides a preternatural trust in the intelligence capabilities of whatever shadowy figures are deciding who to lock up, could you possibly make such a claim? -- Try this thought experiment. What if you were detained tomorrow? How would you go about proving that you weren't a terrorist? (Remember, no lawyer, no habeas corpus, no hearing, no phone call to your family.) Now imagine that you happened to be born with an Arabic-sounding name or dark skin. Try the thought experiment again. I...

10-27-2006 12:32 AM

That's rediculous... many have been released. If captive and innocent I would certainly cooperate. But this is a futile exercise.

10-27-2006 9:21 AM

That's rediculous... many have been released. If captive and innocent I would certainly cooperate. But this is a futile exercise.

Sorry willhelm but I don't understand your comment. What part is ridiculous? What does the fact that "many have been released" have to do with anything? (What about the "many" that have not?) What do you think cooperating with torturers would get you? And what's futile?

10-27-2006 9:45 AM

geeknoob

Silly question: Even if they were found innocent and released, the chances that the torture had already started are high.

Now, try this: in an actual interrogation, you can make an innocent person start to doubt in themselves - or worse, they "confess" to end their suffering and/or pain, whether they are guilty or not. A skilled interrogator will have the victim eating out of his/her hand. The victim will tell them anything, believing that if they just answer the right question correctly, it will all be over.

Grand, so now we have some peole that have been put through partial Hell and given an official "oops, we goofed" apology (I suppose that will help them sleep better at night?) and...

10-27-2006 12:25 PM

One recent piece described a person detained "by mistake" who, driven crazy by his torturers, began claiming to be Osama bin Laden. I'm sorry to say I can't find the link. I'll post it if it turns up again. Then of course there was Dilawar, who was beaten to death in a US FOB in Afghanistan for being a taxi driver who passed by the location at the wrong time. (If you want more details on that, just google the word "pulpified" -- that's how Dilawar's legs were described afterwards.) In Dilawar's case, the interrogators later remarked that they had been fairly certain all along that he had nothing to do with terrorism (link).

10-27-2006 12:44 PM

There is no more freedom in the USA. You are either pro goverment or a potential terrorist.

10-27-2006 1:32 PM

potential terrorist

Come now, I think the PC term is "Anti-American"...

10-27-2006 3:08 PM

No because what i am saying applies to americans. And americans can't be anti-american can they?

The politics of fear that exists today is aimed at controlling the americans. Those that support the government get classed as goodies and patriots. Those that support america but are against the goverment policies (especially oil related ones) get classed as potential subversives who can lose their citizenship rights in one second. The Truth is coming home for all to see, so very very clearly. We need to decide where we want to stand and with whom? Time to make a choice.

But the advice is to make a thorough investigation before making that decision.

ali

10-27-2006 3:37 PM

Godfrey Daniel

Ali, your ignorance of the realities of things American is profound.

10-27-2006 6:44 PM

Could you explain?

10-28-2006 2:22 PM

Clarity requires no further explanation.

11-12-2006 1:45 PM

bohica29

Waterboarding people is fine with me. Sorry if I'm a neandertal about it, but having gone through waterboarding I know it's effective and scares the hell out of whoever's getting it.

If that's what it took to break Khaled Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and prevented around 14 specific attacks on the US, I'm cool with it all.

Besides, Geneva Convention still has provisions against War Criminals that all Warsaw Pact countries (and some nonaffiliated groups) reserved - Article 68?

11-16-2006 9:14 AM

geeknoob

The Geneva Convention (if I recall correctly) doesn't apply to war-time. Or, if it does, Bush / Rummsfeld had arbitrarily decided it didn't apply to the US / our army, and told them to discard it. Either way, it was not in effect when the tortures were going on.

(link)

Perhaps most tellingly, the soldiers felt they were justified in
beating and torturing prisoners because the secretary of Defense,
Donald Rumsfeld, had declared that the detainees, as "terrorists," were
not covered under the Geneva Conventions. They took the gloves off.
Just as their superiors told them to.

11-16-2006 9:57 AM

How did I miss all the fun? Anyway.. thought I'd clarify some things around exactly what an "enemy combatant" is.. since GD likes to throw that term around..

An "Enemy Combatant" is defined as: "An enemy combatant has historically referred to members of the armed forces of the state with which another state is at war."

An "Unlawful Combatant" is defined as: "[i](...) a term used by the Bush administration to label certain persons they consider outside of the protection of the Geneva Conventions(...). The Military Commissions Act codified the legal definition of this term and gave the President broad discretion in how a person is designated as an unlawful enemy combatant. An unlawf...

11-16-2006 9:57 AM

PS: prisoner of war == enemy combatant

11-16-2006 9:59 AM

PPS: sorry, GD I got you mixed up with Will... I apologize for putting words in your mouth, my bad

11-16-2006 10:00 AM

PS The Geneva conventions, being part of a treaty we ratified, are also part of US law.

By the way, doesn't waterboarding effectively fall under the category of "mock executions", which are specifically prohibited?

11-16-2006 10:01 AM

The Geneva Convention (if I recall correctly) doesn't apply to war-time

Were made to enact laws about how countries went to war...

11-16-2006 10:02 AM